If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Obama campaign released news on Saturday morning of a holiday weekend, that it had raised a massive $181 million in September. It's a staggering sum heading into the final month of campaigning. It almost equals his fundraising for July and August combined. But details about Obama's fundraising windfall and a new report this morning from the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) raise troubling questions. Specifically, how much of this fundraising was illegal?

GAI found that Obama's donation page doesn't use any industry-standard credit card security measures. It doesn't even use the basic Card Verification Value (CVV), the security number on the back of a card, that most other campaigns use. Not using this basic security measure makes it much easier for phantom donations or even foreigners to contribute illegally to the Obama campaign.

In 2008, persons named "Doodad Pro", "Test Person" and "Good Will," for example, made donations to the Obama campaign. "Doodad Pro" made an amazing 791 separate donations to the campaign, totaling almost $20k -- far above the donation limits. Some of this came to light four years ago, yet the campaign hasn't put in place any kind of security measures.

It isn't an oversight but a conscious decision to not use CVV security. In fact, credit card companies charge the campaign higher fees because it doesn't use this. So, the campaign is paying millions of dollars more in fees than it would not to have basic security.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign does use CVV security in its merchandise store. They utilize higher standards of security to purchase a coffee mug than making an on-line donation. Thus, the campaign has chosen to use two different payment systems on its site. Odd, eh?

It certainly adds important context to the campaign's announcement that it raised over $180 million in September. >>>

Shockingly, almost half the traffic to the Obama campaign website is from foreign sources. More amazingly, Obama.com, which simply redirects to the Obama donation page, gets almost 70% of its traffic from foreign sources.

And, although the Obama campaign owns hundreds of domain names with various iterations on Obama's name, it doesn't own Obama.com. That site is owned by an American businessman living in China with close ties to the Chinese government. The businessman, Peter Roche, has been to the White House 19 times since Obama took office and even snagged a seat at the head table for the State Dinner for the Chinese premier. >>>

The Obama campaign gets enormous traffic to its site from overseas. Its donation page, unlike its merchandise store, is explicitly set up to not have any basic security or verification systems. It even pays extra money to not have the security features. It obviously feels it derives some benefit from this, but why and how?

Obviously, some portion of the $90 million the campaign raised from small donors is probably illegal. The question is, how much?

Please, please pray that both, Ryan brings this up with Biden on Thursday, and Romney beats Obama over the head with it on the 16th.

Millions of O's supporters will be watching for sure ... hoping to see their "Come-back Kid" work his magic! Hah! ...

The closer we get to this election, the better I am finally beginning to feel. This report will surely "grow legs" ... as you guys in here say ... and have some impact. Perhaps even some brave soul in the MSM will finally grow a spine and speak out against it.

Obama Raises $181 Million In September As ‘Foreign-Donor-Gate’ Heats Up

The election of 2012 apparently has a “gate” of its own now that the scandal is finally making its way to some headlines from coast to coast – and probably even in the “foreign” press as well. Despite reported efforts on the part of the Obama White House to stop the story from spreading, it is now becoming common knowledge that there are improprieties in the massive donations being given to President Barack Obama regarding his reelection efforts in 2012.

As Obama and his campaign boast a $181-million month in September 2012 in fundraising, the story has now broken during the first week of this month which says that there is a scandal regarding the Obama campaign’s foreign donor situation. There is a lengthy report which says there is an incredibly huge amount of campaign donations coming from overseas. >>>

Besides the pathetically poor economy, the 7.8% unemployment rate which was promised to be closer to 5% by now via Obama’s stimulus jobs, foreign affairs and policies that have led to the horrendous anti-American stance throughout the Middle East, and the poor debate performance last Wednesday night in Denver against GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney, President Obama now has a “gate” of his own of which he must contend.

The Washington Examiner news source was the first to report last week that the story would come to a head on Monday via a major magazine and national website. Allegedly, the details which Team Obama has unsuccessfully tried to block were covered-up, gate-style, last week, but are going being revealed this week. At the time this article is being written, all that is nearly-certain is that taxes as well as unsecured credit card transactions are involved with the foreign donation scandal. >>>

“Gate”-incidences have obviously not lost elections for presidents, but they have definitely destroyed presidencies. Thus far, this scandal is being swept under the political rug by the bulk of the media during the initial stages of the story. History has clearly dictated that such stories need to come out immediately – as the corruption is found.

Doesn't fit media narrative. I also guarantee you anyone who brings this up will be labelled a "birther" "conspiracy nut" etc.

Media narrative for over a year had Romney winning the convention, matching up against Obama, and Obama stomping him in a landslide. They were understandably annoyed when the 1st presidential debate didn't go according to the script.

Anyhow, an anonymous tipster mentioned that checking out the source code of the Obama donation website... would reveal some interesting logic. Specifically that IP addresses of the donors can be easily spoofed through a hidden field in the form. The tipster's guess was (and I concur) that the Obama campaign is recording the spoofable IP address... not the real IP address as delivered by the web server.

It's web security 101, folks. Because IP addresses map back to the original source network (your ISP, your company, etc.), the web server's log-file records the actual source IP address of the request. They certainly don't record anything that the requester provides as the genuine address.

Put simply, there's no reason to include a hidden form field for IP address. It is there for one reason alone: IP forgery -- forging the computer addresses of donations to disguise their true sources.

The net result is that IP addresses recorded in this manner can't truly be resolved to a real location. Genius!

Just chalk it up to yet another startling innovation from the minds of the most creative geniuses on Earth. When it comes to accepting money from all comers, that is.

Ace of Spades reminded me of this outfit today when it noted a strange cleanup performed by the Obama campaign >>>

Speaking of foreign money, when people such as Romney hide money overseas, is it still American money?

Why don't you ask some of those rich libertards, they do it too?

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.C. S. LewisDo not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:Ayn Rand

Media narrative for over a year had Romney winning the convention, matching up against Obama, and Obama stomping him in a landslide. They were understandably annoyed when the 1st presidential debate didn't go according to the script.

Do you think the media forced Rooney's nomination and that somehow voters didn't choose him in the primaries, that some how conservatives only vote for who the liberal media chooses for us?

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

Do you think the media forced Rooney's nomination and that somehow voters didn't choose him in the primaries, that some how conservatives only vote for who the liberal media chooses for us?

Well they sure as hell helped matters along, mainly because they thought that Romney would be a walkover for Obama. They were definitely willing accomplices in the slander of Herman Cain, for example. And they definitely did a number on Gingrich, Santorum, and Bachmann, at the very least.

Well they sure as hell helped matters along, mainly because they thought that Romney would be a walkover for Obama. They were definitely willing accomplices in the slander of Herman Cain, for example. And they definitely did a number on Gingrich, Santorum, and Bachmann, at the very least.

They pretty much went after whoever was at the top of the heap in turn, they don't like any conservatives.
I voted for Cain, Oklahoma voted for Cain, unfortunately there were more people in more states that wanted Romney.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.